First of all, my intention here is not to antagonize. I am seriously confused with certain things, and hope that I can spark a positive discussion. I am not a member of the party, but in terms of policy I really like a lot of things that the organization stands for.

My question is why does the Green Party continue to run candidates for president? In my district there were no other Greens running for elected offices - local or statewide. There are also very few Green Party elected officials - and none in legislative offices. There are a number of opportunities in my area to run competitive local races, and yet very rarely do I see Green candidates attempt for these seats. Why? Purely in terms of political strategy it doesn't make sense. How can a party hope to build the support and organization it would need for a national office when it's not even competing for local seats? If I was a political strategist advising the Green Party I would suggest pouring all the time, money and energy from the presidential campaign into targeted, competitive local races.

I understand that for many of you its not about winning the presidential race, but showing your support for the issues, but I just don't see how this is an effective way to accomplish that goal. I would suspect that supporting specific issues like campaign finance reform and citizen redistricting to be more effective than supporting Jill Stein for president. Am I missing something? I'd like to hear what you all have to say.

I have had discussions with several people about this issue, including a former Green who left the party for precisely this reason, but I wanted to get the perspective of people in the party as well.

I actually think it is easier to win local elections than state or national elections. In towns and villages, the main thing to win a campaign is Name Recognition. If some candidates can get enough local support, they can make an impact, while the state and presidential elections are likely to go to Dems or Republicans. I think that, with enough local support, the Green Party might be able to win Vermont or Massachusetts. Securing a win like this would aid in name recognition, increase voter participation, and possibly win some seats in the Congress. I think the Green Party's resources need to be spent on local elections, and informing students at colleges about the positions of the Green Party.

Now, how to find a way to even consider contacting the people higher up to express these ideas; there really isn't a way sadly. :/ Which is another problem, money IS raised, but we need for acess to let the party decide what it goes to.

It's definitely easier for 3rd parties to win local. The reduced sense of importance allows people to vote for who they really want to, instead of playing the political metagame and fearing "wasting" their vote. Plus, each vote counts more.

I think in most areas there just aren't enough people who actually would want to run for office.

The democrats and republicans have law firms in every town to pick candidates from.

The green party doesn't have that kind of network, and most people who could run, even if they sympathize with the party wouldn't neccessarily want to attach their names to a 'radical' thing like being a green party candidate.

I think it's fair to say that Democrats and Republicans have a larger pool of people to recruit candidates, but it doesn't address why the Green Party keeps running a candidate for president. In part I agree with you, the Green Party doesn't have the network like the two big parties, but that's kind of my point. They don't have the network, and you've got to build that piece-by-piece in local races.

Take Philadelphia for example, where Honkala ran for Sheriff last year. There are 17 city council seats - 10 districts and 7 at-large seats. The City Charter guarantees two of the at-large seats to a "minority party." Both parties (D&R) nominate 5 candidates for the at-large seats, and on election day voters can vote for up to 7 candidates. Democrats always sweep their 5 candidates into office, but the Green Party doesn't have to compete with them. Republicans always win the two minority seats because no one bothers to challenge them. The Green Party didn't run a single at-large candidate in 2011. Greens did run a candidate for District 8 (Brian Rudnick), but like Honkala he was defeated. Why fight for VP? Why not continue to pound the pavement in Philly and build support for a local run? If you're successful for City Council suddenly Mayor isn't too far out of reach, then the State Senate, then Congress, then Senate... You don't expect you to answer these questions. I mean to pose them more to spark discussion.

I really agree with you here, I mean look at this page even; how many people really frequent it? Where is the large Green Party site to bring people together to come up with ideas? Where is the support to try and get more Green Party members into positions so they can show what we believe and that we aren't some sort of "radical" group that doesn't have sound ideas? It doesn't really exist. The party needs to take some of the money and instead of heavy spending on a campaign that for now is doomed to failure, and put it towards building that campaign from the ground up.

I think the path to national level Green politics is through local elections and with national Green party candidates running as democrats. Green has a way easier time in local elections due to each vote meaning more, but when we get to the national stage and people start to vote straight ticket, we suffer. The way to fix that is to get the name recognition and political power of a DNC endorsement by running as a Democrat. Then we have a blue with the heart of a green in office, and Green becomes slightly more palatable and recognized to the average voter.

Lets take issues like gay rights as an example. It has only been recently that issues have been changing nationally, but activists have been working for decades on local rights issues: non-discrimination, protections, adoption rights... Even now with issues popping up nationally, a large focus is on states. I think the Green Party ought to take the same approach to electing legislators. If anything running a presidential candidate makes me less likely to vote for a Green. You need to build up to national issues, gain credibility in localities.And yes, it would take quite a few election cycles. What frustrates me about the Green Party tactics is that it doesn't seem to think past the next 4 years. If you want to build a 3rd party in this country, you need to think about the next 40 years.

What's the return on investment for the $900K failed presidential run? If your goal is to feel good about your vote, then maybe that's enough, but if you goal is to transform American politics, there was no return on that investment as far as I can see. It doesn't even help boost local races if the party isn't running any candidates. Nor does it help raise awareness of Green Party issues because $900K is a fraction of the billion-dollar R & D campaigns.

I'd rather see the Green Party raise $50,000 for a race they can win instead of $900K for a race they can't. Jill Stein seems like a decent enough candidate. Why not run in a local election? Win a seat for mayor or city council somewhere. That will create legitimacy, and its something the party can build on. Even her run for Governor of Mass was an overreach. The Green Party can't seriously compete in these big races if they aren't going to do the hard work at the local level to build support.